We report a randomised controlled trial to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic acromioplasty in the treatment of stage II shoulder impingement syndrome. A total of 140 patients were randomly divided into two treatment groups: supervised exercise programme (n = 70, exercise group) and arthroscopic acromioplasty followed by a similar exercise programme (n = 70, combined treatment group). The main outcome measure was self-reported pain on a visual analogue scale of 0 to 10 at 24 months, measured on the 134 patients (66 in the exercise group and 68 in the combined treatment group) for whom endpoint data were available.

An intention-to-treat analysis disclosed an improvement in both groups but without statistically significant difference in outcome between the groups (p = 0.65). The combined treatment was considerably more costly.

Arthroscopic acromioplasty provides no clinically important effects over a structured and supervised exercise programme alone in terms of subjective outcome or cost-effectiveness when measured at 24 months. Structured exercise treatment should be the basis for treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome, with operative treatment offered judiciously until its true merit is proven.

We studied retrospectively the results of revision arthroplasty of the elbow using a linked Coonrad-Morrey implant in 23 patients (24 elbows) after a mean follow-up period of 55 months. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, 19 elbows were satisfactory, nine were excellent and ten good. The median total score had improved from 35 points (20 to 75) before the primary arthroplasty to 85 points (40 to 100) at the latest follow-up. There was a marked relief of pain, but the range of movement showed no overall improvement. Two patients had a second revision because of infection and two for aseptic loosening. The estimated five-year survival rate of the prosthesis was 83.1% (95% confidence interval 61.1 to 93.3). Revision elbow arthroplasty using the Coonrad-Morrey implant provided satisfactory results but with complications occurring in 13 cases.

There are theoretical and practical advantages to modular rather than monoblock designs of prostheses for shoulder arthroplasty, but there are no reported studies which specifically compare the clinical and radiological results of their use. We have compared the results of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis using both types of implant. The monoblock design was used between 1992 and 1995 and the modular design after 1995. Both had cemented all-polyethylene glenoids, the monoblock with matched and the modular with mismatched radii of curvature. There were 34 consecutive shoulders in each group with a mean follow-up of 6.1 years in the first and 5.2 years in the second.

There were no significant differences in improvement of pain scores, active elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, patient satisfaction, or the Neer ratings between the two groups. Two of 28 glenoid components in the first group and six of 30 in the second met the criteria for being radiologically at risk for loosening (p = 0.25). There were no significant differences in clinical outcome or radiological changes between the first- and second-generation designs of implant for shoulder arthroplasty.